- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/828348
Everything in the article notwithstanding (and it is true), even the notion that any image getting posted anywhere being “unprocessed” is hugely spurious even before you get into digital. As anyone who as ever developed film knows, during the development process you also have a huge amount of influence on how the final print will turn out.
In fact, come to think of it, that’s probably why it’s called a “process.”
Anyway, Pierre over there with his beret and turtleneck and his designer spectacles thinks doing no postprocessing on his images makes him “more purist,” or whatever the fuck.
I post unpostprocessed images (with several rather glaringly obvious exceptions) because I enjoy getting the initial output from the camera as close to what I wanted to begin with because that allows me to be lazy.
We are not the same.
One of the coolest projects I had during undergrad was in photography class. Digital cameras were not allowed. The teacher gave us an assignment to “photoshop” a print using only what we find in the red room (meaning no computers) to make a print that should be impossible. The final prints were unrecognizable from the initial subject matter. It was pretty amazing the amount of manipulation possible during development.
Several pieces of terminology still used in digital image manipulation today have names that are hangovers from the analog film era. The entire notion of “digital negatives,” i.e. Adobe’s DNG format is one of them. Also the doge and burn tools in your photo editing software, as I’m sure you know.


